FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

Breacnua · 18-09-2019 7:26pm

LeVaterIzVet wrote: »

Anyone else have no idea where to stay? 150 p/n in the Red Cow..

The Alex hotel was cheap when i booked.

I have a night before constutitional im not using if anyone wants it. i prepaid it months ago, its 60 room only.

Coleman101 · 18-09-2019 8:28pm

Hi Guys, does anyone know what topics came up on contract paper in March 2019? Would appreciate it, thanks in advance.

iamanengine · 18-09-2019 8:44pm

Anyone else panicking yet? :pac:

Olliepollie · 18-09-2019 8:53pm

iamanengine wrote: »

Anyone else panicking yet? :pac:

If multiple breakdowns a day constitute panicking, then yes... most certainly yes!

HappyKitten62 · 18-09-2019 9:03pm

iamanengine wrote: »

Anyone else panicking yet? :pac:

Yes! Currently at the ‘I don’t know ANYTHING’ stage!

vid36 · 18-09-2019 9:40pm

Ibis hotel is also a good option within walking distance of the Red Cow

Amanda226 · 18-09-2019 9:44pm

Are people covering freedom of establishment and freedom of services for EU? Or are people just covering FMOG and FMOW , which ones usually comes up? Thanks

Insta92 · 18-09-2019 9:46pm

What is everyone planning on covering for the Constitution? The syllabus in comparison to the other modules is ridiculous. Appears SOP, unenumerated right and trial in due of course law are popular with the examiner.

I am sitting Equity and Property as well so these are my last three.

Daly29 · 18-09-2019 10:10pm

In Equity, there is a problem question in October 2016 Q2 (person who worked on farm for 30 years, and farm owner dies intestate.) The examiner report refers to it as being on promissory estoppel. From what I can see it is on proprietary estoppel not promissory . Did anyone else see this in the examiner report and is it a typo? It is a popular problem question and I wouldn’t be surprised if it came up again so was hoping someone might be able to confirm

rightytighty · 18-09-2019 10:32pm

iamanengine wrote: »

Anyone else panicking yet? :pac:

Only starting to learn now and sitting 5! ðŸ˜©

ucdlaw_2018 · 19-09-2019 12:04am

Daly29 wrote: »

In Equity, there is a problem question in October 2016 Q2 (person who worked on farm for 30 years, and farm owner dies intestate.) The examiner report refers to it as being on promissory estoppel. From what I can see it is not on proprietary estoppel not promissory . Did anyone else see this in the examiner report and is it a typo? It is a popular problem question and I wouldn’t be surprised if it came up again so was hoping someone might be able to confirm

Same thing happened me. I actually asked my college lecturer who is external examiner and she said it seems that it appears to be a typo and should say proprietary. Hope that helps!

Daly29 · 19-09-2019 12:10am

ucdlaw_2018 wrote: »

Same thing happened me. I actually asked my college lecturer who is external examiner and she said it seems that it appears to be a typo and should say proprietary. Hope that helps!

Thank you, it sure does! Ya I was pretty sure it was a typo. The question repeats itself a few times too and he refers to proprietary in the other reports.

Tony_TwoLegs · 19-09-2019 8:02am

mariussulla1977 wrote: »

Would it be possible to get all 8 exams in one sitting? I am off work till next year and was thinking of doing all 8. Am I crazy?

Relatively crazy!!
The work involved for some subjects is demanding.
I know of one person who tried this approach and regretted it.....

sbbyrne · 19-09-2019 9:07am

The panic is fully setting in, breakdown #1 happened last night, at least most of us are in the same boat!

Speaking of, I cant get my head around Easements and was going to leave it out but after seeing comments on this, I think it's probably not the best idea.

I don't know if its my own notes or what, but if someone would be willing to share theirs I'd be so grateful. I have notes I can share and papers for some subjects. SOS

Thanks

jus_me · 19-09-2019 9:55am

user115 wrote: »

Company Law:

Do you think I would be covered with just doing the following:
- Directors
-Restriction and disq
-Corporate borrowing
-Share transfer
-Receivership
-SLP
-Types of co ltd, dac
- Corporate governance
-Shareholder remedies

I've covered exactly the same... interested to know if anyone would add to this

LawGirl3434 · 19-09-2019 10:20am

jus_me wrote: »

I've covered exactly the same... interested to know if anyone would add to this

Personally would add in main reforms of CA14 because it’s essentially pulling a paragraph from other topics, then I’m also doing corporate authority because it’s due a run and a really lovely Q when it comes up. Also fraudulent and reckless trading is nice easy to spot he usually asks for it directly and only a few cases. Also not sure if was in your list but corporate governance is quite easy to learn once again not many cases and in my opinion could only really be asked a straightforward essay.

I’m sure you’re fine with what you have but just if you want anything else they’re quite nice and quick to learn in my opinion

law_struggles · 19-09-2019 10:48am

Thoughts on not preparing for EU / Constitutional case note questions?

LawGirl3434 · 19-09-2019 10:58am

jus_me wrote: »

I've covered exactly the same... interested to know if anyone would add to this

Personally would add in main reforms of CA14 because it’s essentially pulling a paragraph from other topics, then I’m also doing corporate authority because it’s due a run and a really lovely Q when it comes up. Also fraudulent and reckless trading is nice easy to spot he usually asks for it directly and only a few cases. Also not sure if was in your list but corporate governance is quite easy to learn once again not many cases and in my opinion could only really be asked a straightforward essay.

I’m sure you’re fine with what you have but just if you want anything else they’re quite nice and quick to learn in my opinion

LawGirl3434 · 19-09-2019 11:00am

Can anyone shed some light on the interaction between 101/2 and 106? I get that the state putting an undertaking in a dominant position is an automatic 102, but where does 101 fit in? Also in a Q about the 3 of them his marking scheme seems to suggest he wants a full overview of how 101/2 can be breached, then go into 106(1) and (2) - is that correct?

niamh1612 · 19-09-2019 11:14am

sbbyrne wrote: »

The panic is fully setting in, breakdown #1 happened last night, at least most of us are in the same boat!

Speaking of, I cant get my head around Easements and was going to leave it out but after seeing comments on this, I think it's probably not the best idea.

I don't know if its my own notes or what, but if someone would be willing to share theirs I'd be so grateful. I have notes I can share and papers for some subjects. SOS

Thanks

Im feeling exactly the same about Easements, I dont think its particularly difficult I just found it extremely dull and boring so I cant seem to concentrate on it! I wouldnt leave it out though I think it could come up, Power through

user115 · 19-09-2019 11:41am

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Personally would add in main reforms of CA14 because it’s essentially pulling a paragraph from other topics, then I’m also doing corporate authority because it’s due a run and a really lovely Q when it comes up. Also fraudulent and reckless trading is nice easy to spot he usually asks for it directly and only a few cases. Also not sure if was in your list but corporate governance is quite easy to learn once again not many cases and in my opinion could only really be asked a straightforward essay.

I’m sure you’re fine with what you have but just if you want anything else they’re quite nice and quick to learn in my opinion

Ya doing corporate gov and CA 2014 aswell. Im gona leave out corporate auth cause it was up last 2 sittings and normally its every second sitting. I think so anyway corporate auth is ultra vires isn't it? I was looking at past papers last night and I think I should be okay, some papers of his are totally fine and others are just plain awful, really hope with last year being a really odd paper this sitting will be okay......(well I hope anyway!!)

LawGirl3434 · 19-09-2019 11:41am

sbbyrne wrote: »

The panic is fully setting in, breakdown #1 happened last night, at least most of us are in the same boat!

Speaking of, I cant get my head around Easements and was going to leave it out but after seeing comments on this, I think it's probably not the best idea.

I don't know if its my own notes or what, but if someone would be willing to share theirs I'd be so grateful. I have notes I can share and papers for some subjects. SOS

Thanks

If you google it, mason hayes and Curran have this handy PowerPoint on what an easement is and how it’s described, I found that handy to just like learn about it without all the cases and then go back and learn them once i understood it, rather than trying to do both at the same time in the way I would for other topics

user115 · 19-09-2019 11:50am

Anyone selling companies act 2014?

sbbyrne · 19-09-2019 12:25pm

niamh1612 wrote: »

Im feeling exactly the same about Easements, I dont think its particularly difficult I just found it extremely dull and boring so I cant seem to concentrate on it! I wouldnt leave it out though I think it could come up, Power through

I actually just spent the morning with my head down and it's actually not bad at all. I started from scratch again and used law firm articles to understand it and feel much better about now! We've got this!

ucdlaw_2018 · 19-09-2019 12:47pm

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Personally would add in main reforms of CA14 because it’s essentially pulling a paragraph from other topics, then I’m also doing corporate authority because it’s due a run and a really lovely Q when it comes up. Also fraudulent and reckless trading is nice easy to spot he usually asks for it directly and only a few cases. Also not sure if was in your list but corporate governance is quite easy to learn once again not many cases and in my opinion could only really be asked a straightforward essay.

I’m sure you’re fine with what you have but just if you want anything else they’re quite nice and quick to learn in my opinion

What is corporate governance ? My manual has different headings so not sure if I covered it haha

HappyKitten62 · 19-09-2019 12:55pm

What is everyone actually doing for these last 2 weeks? This is my first time sitting the exams. I had my notes done relatively early but only really started to cram last week. Every day is the same I’m just cramming and reading the papers...am I missing out on some crucial steps? Feel like absolutely nothing is going into my head despite spending hours on learning.

LawGirl3434 · 19-09-2019 1:20pm

user115 wrote: »

Ya doing corporate gov and CA 2014 aswell. Im gona leave out corporate auth cause it was up last 2 sittings and normally its every second sitting. I think so anyway corporate auth is ultra vires isn't it? I was looking at past papers last night and I think I should be okay, some papers of his are totally fine and others are just plain awful, really hope with last year being a really odd paper this sitting will be okay......(well I hope anyway!!)

Hey, not sure what grid you're looking at and I may be wrong but looking at the paper and the marking scheme corporate authority wasn't up last sitting, and it's only come up once in October 2018 as an essay. Corporate authority refers to an agents ability to bind the company - ostensible authority, actual, etc (came up as Q3 in Autumn 2018). So corporate authority refers to people entering into agreements for the company, because while it is a legal person it obviously can't itself. Really lovely question in my opinion, and even if it was a problem Q would just be applying the cases

Then ultra vires is more the company acting outside of it's power and is a totally separate topic (I think). That was up last sitting, don't think I'm going to spend too long on it but it is a paragraph in my 5 main reforms of CA14, so probably no more than that.

Yeah last paper was a stinker and I think that was reflected in the pass rate for sure - lowest it's been in years. Fingers crossed we're due something a bit kinder!

LawGirl3434 · 19-09-2019 1:26pm

ucdlaw_2018 wrote: »

What is corporate governance ? My manual has different headings so not sure if I covered it haha

Corporate governance refers to s158 about how business is managed by directors, unless constitution states otherwise. Courtney (our examiner) has written quite a bit on it so I think that's why it's featured as a question before despite being in my opinion quite a specific question (Spring 2016, Q6).

He can also ask it with regards to meetings - members meetings, written resolutions and estoppel. He asked it once like that, can't remember the year off the top of my head.

Handy enough Q as really are the only 2 above ways he can ask it, not a massive amount of cases for either. Think it's under members meetings in some books, not sure.

Hope that helps

user115 · 19-09-2019 2:09pm

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Hey, not sure what grid you're looking at and I may be wrong but looking at the paper and the marking scheme corporate authority wasn't up last sitting, and it's only come up once in October 2018 as an essay. Corporate authority refers to an agents ability to bind the company - ostensible authority, actual, etc (came up as Q3 in Autumn 2018). So corporate authority refers to people entering into agreements for the company, because while it is a legal person it obviously can't itself. Really lovely question in my opinion, and even if it was a problem Q would just be applying the cases

Then ultra vires is more the company acting outside of it's power and is a totally separate topic (I think). That was up last sitting, don't think I'm going to spend too long on it but it is a paragraph in my 5 main reforms of CA14, so probably no more than that.

Yeah last paper was a stinker and I think that was reflected in the pass rate for sure - lowest it's been in years. Fingers crossed we're due something a bit kinder!

Thanks so much for explaining that

ultra vires wasn't on my grid as stand alone topic so I just presumed it was corporate auth without actually looking at it, good to know now. Might have a look at corporate auth if I've time, doubt il have time though, going to leave myself a whole 5 days to revise tort hopefully doesn't take that long!!

LawGirl3434 · 19-09-2019 2:13pm

user115 wrote: »

Thanks so much for explaining that ultra vires wasn't on my grid as stand alone topic so I just presumed it was corporate auth without actually looking at it, good to know now. Might have a look at corporate auth if I've time, doubt il have time though, going to leave myself a whole 5 days to revise tort hopefully doesn't take that long!!

Don’t stress! Tort you’re also due a kind paper after the absolute stinker we got landed in March there, so you should have a lovely first week

Law101 · 19-09-2019 3:29pm

Hi does anyone know where to get a copy of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980? Can I download it and bring it in? I'm having a mental breakdown, thanks!

supercreative · 19-09-2019 3:36pm

Law101 wrote: »

Hi does anyone know where to get a copy of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980? Can I download it and bring it in? I'm having a mental breakdown, thanks!

You can't bring in a copy printed from the internet - contact the Government Publications Office and they should be able to get a copy for you, you can pay over the phone and my copies of the LCLRA and Succession Act got delivered pretty quickly.

Law101 · 19-09-2019 3:51pm

Thats brilliant, just called them and they're sending them out! thanks a mill

Jeremiah25 · 19-09-2019 3:52pm

What are we covering for Tort guys?

Any predictions or is that just pointless?

iamanengine · 19-09-2019 4:20pm

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

What are we covering for Tort guys?

Any predictions or is that just pointless?

They are kind of pointless, almost impossible to predict. But for what it's worth this is my attempt to do the impossible!:

Limitations - there were two SC cases on Limitations this year so that might be in with a shout, hasn't been up in two sittings.
Land Torts - Comes up almost every sitting, didn't come up last sitting.
Vicarious Liability - Comes up more often than not, didn't come up last sitting.
Ordinary negligence - Hasn't come up in two sittings, has never missed 3 sittings.
Nervous Shock - Hasn't come up in two sittings, could be due a go.
Negligent Misstatement - Hasn't come up in 5 sittings.
Trespass to Person - Infliction of Emotional Distress came up last sitting, maybe a regular Q this time.
Occupiers Liability - Didn't come up last sitting and is quite popular.

Defamation/Damages have been rinsed recently, may be due a miss.

Disclaimer - This is complete guesswork on my part and is purely based on over analyzing the grid. :rolleyes:

My main focus will be on knowing the 8 mentioned inside out but I am still covering Damages/Defamation/Employers Liability etc etc

Last sitting the paper was quite tough so hopefully we are due a nice one, but again, not guaranteed by any means.

LawGirl3434 · 19-09-2019 4:25pm

iamanengine wrote: »

They are kind of pointless, almost impossible to predict. But for what it's worth this is my attempt to do the impossible!:

Limitations - there were two SC cases on Limitations this year so that might be in with a shout, hasn't been up in two sittings.
Land Torts - Comes up almost every sitting, didn't come up last sitting.
Vicarious Liability - Comes up more often than not, didn't come up last sitting.
Ordinary negligence - Hasn't come up in two sittings, has never missed 3 sittings.
Nervous Shock - Hasn't come up in two sittings, could be due a go.
Negligent Misstatement - Hasn't come up in 5 sittings.
Trespass to Person - Infliction of Emotional Distress came up last sitting, maybe a regular Q this time.
Occupiers Liability - Didn't come up last sitting and is quite popular.

Defamation/Damages have been rinsed recently, may be due a miss.

Disclaimer - This is complete guesswork on my part and is purely based on over analyzing the grid. :rolleyes:

My main focus will be on knowing the 8 mentioned inside out but I am still covering Damages/Defamation/Employers Liability etc etc

Last sitting the paper was quite tough so hopefully we are due a nice one, but again, not guaranteed by any means.

Guys just to flag on this - I sat the march 2019 paper and scored well in that Q on the infliction of emotional distress (think 13 or 14 out of 20) and I only spoke about nervous shock, don’t mean to add in any confusion but had literally had one case on infliction of emotional distress that I threw in at the end, so I feel it must have come up on the last paper?

Daly29 · 19-09-2019 4:47pm

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Guys just to flag on this - I sat the march 2019 paper and scored well in that Q on the infliction of emotional distress (think 13 or 14 out of 20) and I only spoke about nervous shock, don’t mean to add in any confusion but had literally had one case on infliction of emotional distress that I threw in at the end, so I feel it must have come up on the last paper?

It's a bit confusing, I scored well in this Q and I focused on nervous shock, I think I added a line re intentional infliction.

As someone helpfully explained -

In an intentional infliction of emotional distress case, the tort is the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress
and the loss, injury, damage etc. might be nervous shock.

Hopefully that clarifies a bit :-)

Rereading your message - yes it did come up last sitting.

LawGirl3434 · 19-09-2019 4:52pm

Daly29 wrote: »

It's a bit confusing, I scored well in this Q and I focused on nervous shock, I think I added a line re intentional infliction.

As someone helpfully explained -

In an intentional infliction of emotional distress case, the tort is the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress
and the loss, injury, damage etc. might be nervous shock.

Hopefully that clarifies a bit :-)

Rereading your message - yes it did come up last sitting.

That explains it! Looks like we got the right answer on the day without understanding how

iamanengine · 19-09-2019 4:54pm

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Guys just to flag on this - I sat the march 2019 paper and scored well in that Q on the infliction of emotional distress (think 13 or 14 out of 20) and I only spoke about nervous shock, don’t mean to add in any confusion but had literally had one case on infliction of emotional distress that I threw in at the end, so I feel it must have come up on the last paper?

Well, that is confusing haha

I got a grid off someone doing the city colleges course and that question is marked as Trespass to the Person not Nervous Shock.

Also the way its phrased - Advise Mary (the tortfeasor) as to any potential liability in tort law that she may have - her liability would be under the tort of infliction of emotional distress. If it was Nervous Shock I am thinking it would ask whether Joseph has any recourse under Tort, which would be under Nervous Shock.

Infliction of Emotional Distress being the Tort and Nervous Shock being the type of injury.

Maybe he allowed it seeing as the Q is kind of ambiguous?

Not sure though, I definitely could be wrong!

Edit - I just checked the examiner report. He says "A question on the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress..."

Sineaddh · 19-09-2019 5:34pm

Hi all... definitely getting nervous now as the day draws closer! I sat property last time with succession, ap, ownership, land reg essay and easements and only got a 45! This time I’m doing all that aswell as coownership.. should I have another topic just in case the same happens as March?

Also first time sitting equity! Any tips on what topics I should cover? Haven’t started studying it yet so definitely worried and would really appreciate any advice!

hullaballoo · 19-09-2019 5:46pm

iamanengine wrote: »

Well, that is confusing haha

I got a grid off someone doing the city colleges course and that question is marked as Trespass to the Person not Nervous Shock.

Also the way its phrased - Advise Mary (the tortfeasor) as to any potential liability in tort law that she may have - her liability would be under the tort of infliction of emotional distress. If it was Nervous Shock I am thinking it would ask whether Joseph has any recourse under Tort, which would be under Nervous Shock.

Infliction of Emotional Distress being the Tort and Nervous Shock being the type of injury.

Maybe he allowed it seeing as the Q is kind of ambiguous?

Not sure though, I definitely could be wrong!

Edit - I just checked the examiner report. He says "A question on the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress..."

hullaballoo wrote: »

Nervous shock is not a tort in the way that intentional infliction of emotional distress is. Nervous shock is a condition that may be a result of a tort (wrong) but it is not a wrong itself.

So any given question can be about one or both the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and nervous shock.

Conflating the two concepts would cause confusion. I will try and clarify by reference to more accessible torts and conditions.

Take the tort of negligence. The wrong is the negligent act or omission that gives rise to loss, injury, damage etc. A straightforward example is concussion suffered as a result of being rear-ended in a car crash. The tort or wrong is the negligent driving (failing to stop, driving at an excessive speed, failure to keep a proper look out etc.) The loss, injury, damage is the concussion.

In an intentional infliction of emotional distress case, the tort is the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress and the loss, injury, damage etc. might be nervous shock. So to continue with a road traffic scenario by way of analogy, if someone drives so erratically and in such a dangerous way as to give other road users such a fright that one or more of them develop nervous shock, for example, an out of control driver mounting a footpath at a busy bus stop but miraculously failing to hit any pedestrians might still cause loss or damage to people at the bus stop from their wrongdoing. This may be held to be the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and some of the rather fortunate unfortunates at the bus stop may develop nervous shock and have a case against the driver of the vehicle.

THIS POST IS ABOUT NERVOUS SHOCK VS. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DAMAGE!!!

Hopefully that settles it.

The real shame is that there's any confusion in the first place tbh because it should be made crystal clear they are entirely different concepts every time lecturers encounter them.

iamanengine · 19-09-2019 6:42pm

Sineaddh wrote: »

Hi all... definitely getting nervous now as the day draws closer! I sat property last time with succession, ap, ownership, land reg essay and easements and only got a 45! This time I’m doing all that aswell as coownership.. should I have another topic just in case the same happens as March?

Also first time sitting equity! Any tips on what topics I should cover? Haven’t started studying it yet so definitely worried and would really appreciate any advice!

For what it's worth, I'm covering:

Succession, AP, Finding, Registration, Easements, Mortgages, Family Property, Co-Ownership and decided today to cover Landlord and Tenant Law as I think it's due up.

I'm definitely playing it on the safe side though.

channing90 · 19-09-2019 8:06pm

I have covered AP, Succession, co ownership, Easements, Finding and Family Property. How safe is this?
was thinking of doing another on of either landlord tenant or land reg.

rightytighty · 19-09-2019 8:10pm

What is everyone covering for equity?

Law101 · 19-09-2019 8:20pm

CONTRACT

Just wondering about Consumer Protection - is it necessary to do the European part? Does it come up regularly, can I leave it out (I've no grids)? I've done everything else and can't face CP at all, its my last topic. Plus I know the examiner actually teaches the module. I'm finding the case load extremely heavy, no idea how I'm going to memorise everything - nightmare.

Sineaddh · 19-09-2019 8:22pm

channing90 wrote: »

I have covered AP, Succession, co ownership, Easements, Finding and Family Property. How safe is this?
was thinking of doing another on of either landlord tenant or land reg.

I know last time we were expecting a land reg essay and it never came up so maybe that!

iamanengine · 19-09-2019 8:38pm

Would anyone mind sharing what they are covering for Tort?

Want to make sure I'm covering enough, I think I am but it's hard to know

TheLawGuy · 19-09-2019 8:46pm

With regards to the legislation we can bring into the exams, are we allowed to highlight the relevant areas?

sbbyrne · 19-09-2019 8:52pm

TheLawGuy wrote: »

With regards to the legislation we can bring into the exams, are we allowed to highlight the relevant areas?

Yes, you can highlight but no drawing or writing - literally just highlight and tab

iamanengine · 19-09-2019 10:05pm

Property people:

Just remembered some legislation was enacted this year re Landlord and Tenant Law so it might pop up in a Q this sitting - Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019 came into force in June.

FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

Comments